Rockets of the world

[tater]

Thought everyone would enjoy this:

http://skrabek.com

And his site to purchase a poster:

https://www.etsy.com/listing/220333296/rockets-of-the-world-2017?ref=featured_listings_row

 

[Spaceception]

Awesome! 

And are the falcon 9s to scale, if so, WOW, it's really grown since its first flight. 

[Skylon]

34 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Awesome! 

And are the falcon 9s to scale, if so, WOW, it's really grown since its first flight. 

I guess so, here is a picture showing the growth of the Falcon 9 from version to version: 

Edit: Hmmm I can't copy/paste pictures on a tablet, I'll send the link: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Falcon_rocket_family4.svg#mw-jump-to-license

Edited June 13, 2017 by Skylon

[tater]

I think this diagram has some iissues now that I look at it. F9 diameter has not changed that I know of, so they must only be to scale by row.

Yeah, the bottom F9 is about 10% wider.

[Kryten]

Here's my attempt. Some of the scaling is a bit dodgy, but should still be better than that one. Has all currently operational rockets, except Kaituo-2 (which we don't have any scale data for).

[Streetwind]

The one from the OP also weirds me out for other reasons. Like, 20 flights for the Atlas V? How old is that poster? It has 71 flights today! At the same time, though, it lists 3 Vega flights, which means it can't be older than May 2014. Since I'm pretty sure that Atlas V has not had 51 flights in three years, what's up with that? Author adding new rockets over time but not updating the older entries?

[NSEP]

Mmmm, yes, Rockets.

I have seen this before.

[StupidAndy]

where's F9FT?

[regex]

Finally, a "rockets of the world" poster that doesn't include the Falcon Heavy.

[tater]

4 minutes ago, regex said:

Finally, a "rockets of the world" poster that doesn't include the Falcon Heavy.

Give it T_E*4months. Where T_E is the Elon time warp factor.

[regex]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

Give it T_E*4months. Where T_E is the Elon time warp factor.

  

It's like three months now, isn't it? Space-X upping their game...

Anyway, that is a very cool poster, I think I'm going to order one for my kiddo.

[Bill Phil]

I don't see a Delta III, or an Atlas-Centaur...

Neat poster, though.

[tater]

5 minutes ago, regex said:

Anyway, that is a very cool poster, I think I'm going to order one for my kiddo.

That's exactly what I thought when I saw it. I can get over the newer F9 being 3 pixels wider, and a few missing LVs.

[StupidAndy]

found this at the website:

[Brotoro]

Why does the Space Shuttle show two launch failures? STS-51L was a launch failure, but all other STS flights successfuly placed their payloads into orbit.

Or do all of the other failure numbers take into account failures of their payloads to complete their missions? If so...why does Buran show two flight successes...the first Energia mission failed to put its payload into orbit as planned.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Brotoro

[Streetwind]

9 hours ago, Brotoro said:

Why does the Space Shuttle show two launch failures? STS-51L was a launch failure, but all other STS flights successfuly placed their payloads into orbit.

Or do all of the other failure numbers take into account failures of their payloads to complete their missions? If so...why does Buran show two flight successes...the first Energia mission failed to put its payload into orbit as planned.

Because such things are very dependant on interpretation. A lot of failures are not so clear-cut that you can cleanly sort them into one of two drawers. spacelaunchreport.com chronicles launch vehicle performance and reliability, and their listings are chock-full of footnotes about what is included or excluded where. For example, that website too counts the loss of Columbia as a launch failure because the primary payload (the orbiter) was lost during its mission due to a problem (a debris strike) that occured during launch.

Some other examples: on the last Falcon 9 v1.0 flight, the launcher suffered an engine failure. However, due to the way the vehicle was designed, this did not prevent it from reaching orbit. The primary payload was successfully delivered. However, a secondary payload did not reach its intended orbit and reentered a few days later. Fast forward to 2016: SpaceX loses a Falcon 9 during a routine pre-launch ground operations test. On one hand, this wasn't even a launch. On the other hand, the primary payload was destroyed, and it happened because of an intrinsic technical fault of the launch vehicle that could just as easily have happened during or after the real countdown.

Which of those two do you count as a "launch failure"? Neither, because one wasn't a launch and the other delivered its primary payload successfully? Both, because on both instances something was lost due to a technical problem with the launcher? Only the one where the primary payload was lost? Only the one where it happened in flight?

It's completely up to you. And that is why you will often encounter situations like this, where you don't necessarily agree with another person's view on launcher performance.

[tater]

In that case he'd be better to have LOC incidents and LOM incidents.

While Columbia (STS-107) was destroyed upon reentry, I can actually call it a failure of the LV since one, the Orbiter was part of the LV as well as being the payload due to the novel arrangement of Shuttle, and two, it was a failure of another part of the LV (the main tank) that was the cause of the reentry failure. 

[wumpus]

21 hours ago, StupidAndy said:

found this at the website:

No astronaut got space sick before Apollo.  Even though plenty vomited aboard the "vomit comet", 0-gee didn't appear to affect the Mercury and Gemini astronauts.  I *think* they were aware of the Russians getting space sick, but didn't think it could be due to being in space (because of so many NASA astronauts not getting sick).  Best guess it was due to the tiny capsules and any real way to be turning differently than the capsule, because once they got into space with Apollo, some astronauts got sick.

So it turned out there were advantages to a capsule that you could wear.

PS.  any idea how big the interior of the shuttle was?

[SuperFastJellyfish]

26 minutes ago, wumpus said:

PS.  any idea how big the interior of the shuttle was?

 

From here:

Quote

The crew cabin's total pressurized volume is about 74.3 cubic meters (2,625 cubic feet). The cabin includes a circular side hatch, about a meter (3 feet) in diameter, that is used for entry and exit from the shuttle before launch and after landing.